Magnitude of losses from tubulars in terms of rolling resistance

I was recently turned to some postings on slowtwitch.com regarding Tufo
tubulars (with tape), and how they have dramatically higher rolling
resistance than both other tubulars and clincher wheels. Besides
citing some German magazine article where the tires were tested, there
is a member claiming that they train with a power meter and reported
20W difference between using their wheels with Tufo tires and a set of
decent clinchers. Others on the board are reporting equally disturbing
anecdotal evidence that Tufo tires are bad.

I used a set of LEW Palermos with Tufo tubulars (and tape) as my race
wheels last season, and having read these postings on slowtwitch, I'm
almost afraid to continue using them. I train with a PowerTap . . .
20W is a lot.

I know there are people on this group (Jobst Brandt, perhaps others as
well) that are experts on this topic. I accepted their statements that
the rolling resistance of tubular tires was more than for clinchers,
but always figured the effect was more or less negligible. Is this 20W
statement possible?

Additionally, I see from some posts that there is a recommendation to
use "track glue" instead of standard tubular glue . . . glue that is
harder offers lower rolling resistance. Is there any specific brand of
this type of glue?

I'm not an expert. You could use shellac but this is only available in
hardware stores. You would have to remove all the glue from your rims
as shellac and tubular glues don't get along. Tire replacement would
be a royal pain as one of the reasons one uses tubular glues is to make
tire changing possible while on a road ride. Who knows what the
wattage figure would be for you and your equipment. One of the
posters also said he got better rolling resistance from Vittoria Corsa
tubulars than the clinchers IIRC. YMMV.

So they are saying that the TAPE makes losses of 20w?? I dunno....
Seems a little wacky to me. I do use tufo's myself, adn I will state
unequivocally that the s22 training tyre is the slowest tyre made by
mankind. Our freaking juniors coast downhill faster than I do.. Those
things roll S-L-O-W. But they corner well and are bombproof, hence
training tyre. The s3 lites are damn fast.. I don't use tape, except
for cross, and even then it's with glue as well.

A few years ago, I got some Nisi (?) rim cement, that was JKA approved.
Cost a fortune for the shop, and came in 2 bottles.. A bonding agent,
and a hardener. THAT stuff stuck like nobody's business.. Typically I
use mastik 1. I seem to recall the problem with LEW and TUFO was one
of rim/tyre interface. Paul had a really shallow rim surface that
didn't mate well with tufo tyres. We did use tufo's on them at times,
but we are better at gluing tyres (knock on wood) than the average
bear. And we check them frequently. I do recall that the 19mm tyres
stuck better to the super shallow super narrow lew rim.
MYLES

So they are saying that the TAPE makes losses of 20w?? I dunno....
Seems a little wacky to me. I do use tufo's myself, adn I will state
unequivocally that the s22 training tyre is the slowest tyre made by
mankind. Our freaking juniors coast downhill faster than I do.. Those
things roll S-L-O-W. But they corner well and are bombproof, hence
training tyre. The s3 lites are damn fast.. I don't use tape, except
for cross, and even then it's with glue as well.

A few years ago, I got some Nisi (?) rim cement, that was JKA approved.
Cost a fortune for the shop, and came in 2 bottles.. A bonding agent,
and a hardener. THAT stuff stuck like nobody's business.. Typically I
use mastik 1. I seem to recall the problem with LEW and TUFO was one
of rim/tyre interface. Paul had a really shallow rim surface that
didn't mate well with tufo tyres. We did use tufo's on them at times,
but we are better at gluing tyres (knock on wood) than the average
bear. And we check them frequently. I do recall that the 19mm tyres
stuck better to the super shallow super narrow lew rim.
MYLES

No. There are a couple of riders who use clinchers wheels and tubular
wheels on the same routes and claim that to maintain the same speed on
tubulars requires 20 more watts of output versus the same speed on
clinchers. Invariablly the tubular/wheel combination is lighter and
more aero than the clincher/wheel combination. Most folks are using a
higher quality Tufo, not the S22.

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/gforum.c...nread#unre ad

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/gforum.c...nread#unre ad

On 10 May 2005 15:30:55 -0700, wrote:

I was recently turned to some postings on slowtwitch.com regarding Tufo
tubulars (with tape), and how they have dramatically higher rolling
resistance than both other tubulars and clincher wheels. Besides
citing some German magazine article where the tires were tested, there
is a member claiming that they train with a power meter and reported
20W difference between using their wheels with Tufo tires and a set of
decent clinchers. Others on the board are reporting equally disturbing
anecdotal evidence that Tufo tires are bad.

I used a set of LEW Palermos with Tufo tubulars (and tape) as my race
wheels last season, and having read these postings on slowtwitch, I'm
almost afraid to continue using them. I train with a PowerTap . . .
20W is a lot.

I know there are people on this group (Jobst Brandt, perhaps others as
well) that are experts on this topic. I accepted their statements that
the rolling resistance of tubular tires was more than for clinchers,
but always figured the effect was more or less negligible. Is this 20W
statement possible?

Additionally, I see from some posts that there is a recommendation to
use "track glue" instead of standard tubular glue . . . glue that is
harder offers lower rolling resistance. Is there any specific brand of
this type of glue?

Dear Eric,

Tom Compton used Jobst Brandt's rolling resistance data from
a few decades ago to create this calculator, which lets you
compare a variety of kinds of tires:

http://www.analyticcycling.com/ForcesTires_Page.html

8 m/s 8 m/s 10 m/s
17.9 mph 17.9 mph 22.4 mph
3% grade flat flat
watts watts watts
prem clinch 278.5 102.0 182.7
util clinch 285.1 108.6 190.9
tour clinch 291.7 115.2 199.1

prem tub t-glue 278.6 102.1 182.8
util tub t-glue 285.2 108.7 191.0
tour tub t-glue 291.8 115.3 199.3

prem tub r-glue 290.0 113.5 197.5
util tub r-glue 296.6 120.1 205.3
tour tub r-glue 303.2 126.6 213.5

So even back then a fast premium clincher could save about
25-30 watts over a slow touring tubular with road glue.

Where a Tufo with its plastic-tape glue-strip would fit in
the table above is the question. Perhaps someone will find
some rolling resistance data that includes Tufo, but none my
links mention the oddball design.

Tufo implies wonderful results, but gives no details,
testing, comparisons, or any other support. The company
simply claims that their tire design has "low rolling
resistance":

http://www.tufonorthamerica.com/whattype.php

I'm skeptical, since The same Tufo description also
contradicts the test data used by Tom Compton by claiming
that tubulars "from all tire types have the lowest rolling
resistance."

The Tufo may have other fine qualities, but it doesn't look
as if rolling resistance is one of them.

Carl Fogel

On Tue, 10 May 2005 20:40:42 -0600,
wrote:

On 10 May 2005 15:30:55 -0700, wrote:

I was recently turned to some postings on slowtwitch.com regarding Tufo
tubulars (with tape), and how they have dramatically higher rolling
resistance than both other tubulars and clincher wheels. Besides
citing some German magazine article where the tires were tested, there
is a member claiming that they train with a power meter and reported
20W difference between using their wheels with Tufo tires and a set of
decent clinchers. Others on the board are reporting equally disturbing
anecdotal evidence that Tufo tires are bad.

I used a set of LEW Palermos with Tufo tubulars (and tape) as my race
wheels last season, and having read these postings on slowtwitch, I'm
almost afraid to continue using them. I train with a PowerTap . . .
20W is a lot.

I know there are people on this group (Jobst Brandt, perhaps others as
well) that are experts on this topic. I accepted their statements that
the rolling resistance of tubular tires was more than for clinchers,
but always figured the effect was more or less negligible. Is this 20W
statement possible?

Additionally, I see from some posts that there is a recommendation to
use "track glue" instead of standard tubular glue . . . glue that is
harder offers lower rolling resistance. Is there any specific brand of
this type of glue?

Dear Eric,

Tom Compton used Jobst Brandt's rolling resistance data from
a few decades ago to create this calculator, which lets you
compare a variety of kinds of tires:

http://www.analyticcycling.com/ForcesTires_Page.html

8 m/s 8 m/s 10 m/s
17.9 mph 17.9 mph 22.4 mph
3% grade flat flat
watts watts watts
prem clinch 278.5 102.0 182.7
util clinch 285.1 108.6 190.9
tour clinch 291.7 115.2 199.1

prem tub t-glue 278.6 102.1 182.8
util tub t-glue 285.2 108.7 191.0
tour tub t-glue 291.8 115.3 199.3

prem tub r-glue 290.0 113.5 197.5
util tub r-glue 296.6 120.1 205.3
tour tub r-glue 303.2 126.6 213.5

So even back then a fast premium clincher could save about
25-30 watts over a slow touring tubular with road glue.

Where a Tufo with its plastic-tape glue-strip would fit in
the table above is the question. Perhaps someone will find
some rolling resistance data that includes Tufo, but none my
links mention the oddball design.

Tufo implies wonderful results, but gives no details,
testing, comparisons, or any other support. The company
simply claims that their tire design has "low rolling
resistance":

http://www.tufonorthamerica.com/whattype.php

I'm skeptical, since The same Tufo description also
contradicts the test data used by Tom Compton by claiming
that tubulars "from all tire types have the lowest rolling
resistance."

The Tufo may have other fine qualities, but it doesn't look
as if rolling resistance is one of them.

Carl Fogel

Aha! Here's the result of one test using Tufo tires:

"We also tested the tufo tires. They seemed like the perfect
solution. They could take ridiculous amounts of pressure.
Because they are rolled in there construction rather than
sewed they are the most round and uniform tire I've ever
seen. They also have sturdy side walls and are reasonably
inexpensive. Seems perfect right? One big flaw, slow as
molasses. I was as much as 4 mph slower on these tires even
at 200psi."

"I spent a few days trying to top 96km/h in Montreal. I
switched to the panaracers and immediately went 101km/h
several times. This was shown in our rolldown test as well
when I rolled nearly 50% further on the cheap panaracers.
Even On my road racing bike I could feel that the tufo's
where sluggish."

http://www.recumbent-bikes-truth-for...ober-2003.html

Carl Fogel

wrote:

Aha! Here's the result of one test using Tufo tires:

"We also tested the tufo tires. They seemed like the perfect
solution. They could take ridiculous amounts of pressure.
Because they are rolled in there construction rather than
sewed they are the most round and uniform tire I've ever
seen. They also have sturdy side walls and are reasonably
inexpensive. Seems perfect right? One big flaw, slow as
molasses. I was as much as 4 mph slower on these tires even
at 200psi."

"I spent a few days trying to top 96km/h in Montreal. I
switched to the panaracers and immediately went 101km/h
several times. This was shown in our rolldown test as well
when I rolled nearly 50% further on the cheap panaracers.
Even On my road racing bike I could feel that the tufo's
where sluggish."


I reread the article- that quote is from Sam Whittingham, the World's
Fastest Human (tm). Sam's pretty good about preparation and testing,
and I value his assessments. The HPV's he races usually roll on 24"
Panaracer Tecnova clinchers- good, but not great tires. If the Tufos
make a 5 km/h difference at those speeds (where air drag dominates),
then the Tufos are pretty crappy.

Jeff

wrote:
I was recently turned to some postings on slowtwitch.com regarding
Tufo
tubulars (with tape), and how they have dramatically higher rolling
resistance than both other tubulars and clincher wheels. Besides
citing some German magazine article where the tires were tested,
there
is a member claiming that they train with a power meter and reported
20W difference between using their wheels with Tufo tires and a set
of
decent clinchers. Others on the board are reporting equally
disturbing
anecdotal evidence that Tufo tires are bad.

I used a set of LEW Palermos with Tufo tubulars (and tape) as my race
wheels last season, and having read these postings on slowtwitch, I'm
almost afraid to continue using them. I train with a PowerTap . . .
20W is a lot.

Is it really? I think claims of good and poor rolling resistence, altho
when taken in isolation seem huge, when applied to the bike/rider
equation, are lost in the noise.

Not a fan of Tufos since ya can't repair them, but tubies in general
have lots of advantages, none related to rolling resistence. In the sea
of race wheels, many are carbon and tubie, so a good choice of tubie is
essential.


I know there are people on this group (Jobst Brandt, perhaps others
as
well) that are experts on this topic. I accepted their statements
that
the rolling resistance of tubular tires was more than for clinchers,
but always figured the effect was more or less negligible. Is this
20W
statement possible?

Additionally, I see from some posts that there is a recommendation to
use "track glue" instead of standard tubular glue . . . glue that is
harder offers lower rolling resistance. Is there any specific brand
of
this type of glue?

I use tubies everyday(not a racer) and we glue tubies for many racers
here in the republic. Using regular tubie glue, from Conti or Vittoria,
done correctly, makes for a tire that will not roll off inna race, the
goal, after all. For durability, Conti Sprinters, for a more supple
ride, Vittoria CX...

Yes, 20W is a lot. The question isn't whether losing 20W can
measurably slow you down -- anyone who trains with a powermeter will
tell you they'd pay an awful lot to add 20W to their threshold.

The question is whether the Tufos can really suck that bad as to take
an extra 20W to roll at race speeds. Whether they are really that bad
or not, I've seen enough from this thread and others that makes me
doubt them. I'm going to make a switch . . . just got some Veloflex
Records.

Thanks for all of the replies.